Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder/Chapter 2
CHAPTER II.
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS OF THE SUCCESS OF THE BOLSHEVIKS.
Probably almost everyone can see now that the Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power for two and a half years, nor even for two and a half months, without the most stringent, I may say iron, discipline in our party, and without the fullest and unreserved support rendered it by the working class, that is, by that part of it which is sensible, honest, devoted, influential, capable of leading and of inspiring the backward masses with enthusiasm.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fiercest and most merciless war of the new class against its more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose power of resistance increases tenfold after its overthrow, even though overthrown in only one country. The power of the bourgeoisie rests not alone upon international capital, upon its strong international connections, but also upon the force of habit, on the force of small industry of which, unfortunately, there is plenty left, and which daily, hourly, gives birth to capitalism and bourgeoisie, spontaneously and on a large scale. Because of all this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is indispensable. Victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, persistent, desperate, life and death struggle: a struggle which requires persistence, discipline, firmness, inflexibility and concerted will-power.
I repeat, the experience of the triumphant dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia has furnished an object-lesson to those who are incapable of reasoning or who have had no opportunity to reason on this question. It proves that unqualified centralization and the strictest discipline of the proletariat are among the principal conditions for the victory over the bourgeoisie. Here people usually stop. They do not inquire sufficiently into the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and under what conditions it is possible. Would it not be better to accompany the greetings to the Soviet power and the Bolsheviks by a more searching analysis of the reasons why the latter were able to institute a discipline necessary for the revolutionary proletariat?
Bolshevism, as a current of political thought and as a political party, dates back to the year 1903. Only the history of its whole period of existence can explain satisfactorily why it was able to institute and maintain, under most difficult conditions, the iron discipline necessary for the proletarian victory.
And, first of all, the question arises—Upon what rests the discipline of the revolutionary party of the proletariat? How is it controlled? How is it strengthened? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the Revolution, by its steadiness, spirit of self-sacrifice, and heroism. Secondly, by its ability to mix with the toiling masses, to become intimate and, to a certain extent if you will, fuse itself with the non-proletarian toilers. Thirdly, by the soundness of the political leadership, carried out by this vanguard, and by its correct political strategy and tactics, based on the idea that the workers from their own experience must convince themselves of the soundness of this political leadership, strategy and tactics. Without all these conditions discipline in a revolutionary party, really capable of being a party of the foremost class whose object is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform society, is impossible of realization. Without these conditions all attempts to create discipline result in empty phrases, in mere contortions. On the other hand, these conditions will not arise suddenly. They are created through long effort and bitter experience. Their creation is facilitated by correct revolutionary theory, which in its turn is not dogmatic, but which forms itself in its finality only through close connection with the practice of the real mass and truly revolutionary movement.
If Bolshevism could successfully, and under the greatest difficulties, achieve in 1917–1920 the strictest centralization and iron discipline, it was due simply to a series of historical peculiarities of Russia.
On the one hand, Bolshevism came into being in 1903 on the very firm foundation of Marxian theory. And the soundness revolutionary theory, and of no other, was proved not only by the experience of all countries during the entire 19th century, but particularly by the experience of the ramblings, vaccillations, mistakes and disappointments of revolutionary in Russia. For half a century–approximately between forties and nineties of the preceding century–advanced intellects in Russia, under the yoke of the wildest and most reactionary Czarism, sought eagerly for a correct revolutionary theory, following each and every "last word" in Europe and America with astounding diligence and thoroughness. Russia has attained Marxism, the only revolutionary theory by dint of fifty years' travail and sacrifice, through the greatest revolutionary heroism, the most incredible energy and devotion in seeking, educating, practical experience, disappointment, checking and comparison with European experience. Thanks to the emigration forced by the Czar, revolutionary Russia, in the second half of the 19th century, came into possession of rich international connections, and of a grasp of the superlative forms and theories of the revolutionary movement such as no other country had.
On the other hand, having come into existence on this granite thoretical foundation, Bolshevism went through fifteen years (1903–1917) of practical history which, in fertility of experience, had no equal anywhere else in the world. In no other country, during, those fifteen years, was there anything approximating to such wide revolutionary experience, such a variety and rapidity of shifting forms in the movement—legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, open and underground, embracing small circles and large masses, parliamentary and terrorist. In no other country, during so short a period of time, has there been concentrated such a multiplicity of forms, shades and methods of struggle, embracing all classes of modern society. To this it must be added that the struggle maturing with particular rapidity, because of the backwardness of the country and the heavy yoke of Czarism, assimilated eagerly and successfully the latest developments of American and European political experience.